RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: As you say, Labour seemingly don't have to do anything save watch the Tories fck everything up.

Yet Corbyn is behind May and the parties are within the margin of error.

odd innit, but 3-4 years hence, the UK won't be U or K, and government by spreadsheet and brexit will make this an even bleaker place.

Depressing innit

The govt really need to base their domestic policy on inter-generational fairness - housing, wages, pensions etc etc - or, yep, the U.K. will no longer be united. Two new things today that show the differences between the generations: 1 in 4 middle class millennials own their own home as opppsed to 2 in 3 in the 90’s, and 62% of 18-24 year olds opppse the reintroduction of compulsory national service whilst 74% of 65+ support the idea.

There are quite a few ministers who realise this but they’re being blocked by Hammond’s spreadsheet and/or May’s negativity. So, yep, depressing.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yet Corbyn is behind May and the parties are within the margin of error.

odd innit, but 3-4 years hence, the UK won't be U or K, and government by spreadsheet and brexit will make this an even bleaker place.

Depressing innit

The govt really need to base their domestic policy on inter-generational fairness - housing, wages, pensions etc etc - or, yep, the U.K. will no longer be united. Two new things today that show the differences between the generations: 1 in 4 middle class millennials own their own home as opppsed to 2 in 3 in the 90’s, and 62% of 18-24 year olds opppse the reintroduction of compulsory national service whilst 74% of 65+ support the idea.

There are quite a few ministers who realise this but they’re being blocked by Hammond’s spreadsheet and/or May’s negativity. So, yep, depressing.

frankly, the middle looks ferked either way.

With Ann Black set to win the role to chair the Labour national policy forum (which basically sets the agenda for the manifesto going into an election) the NEC and the Unions decided in the name of democracy to cancel the vote. The problem it would seem is Ann Black is seen as too right wing in an age of the Dear Leader™ and Momentum, and thus it's important to not have the vote until they can fix who'll win.

Also it would seem no small amount of misogyny at work, but that along with an aversion to democracy is what drives much of what's left of Labour. I'd also note if Ann Black is seen as too right wing then Labour might worry people rather more than they might have feared last year.

Truly worrying times with the swivel eyed loons in control of both major parties.

Digby wrote:With Ann Black set to win the role to chair the Labour national policy forum (which basically sets the agenda for the manifesto going into an election) the NEC and the Unions decided in the name of democracy to cancel the vote. The problem it would seem is Ann Black is seen as too right wing in an age of the Dear Leader™ and Momentum, and thus it's important to not have the vote until they can fix who'll win.

Also it would seem no small amount of misogyny at work, but that along with an aversion to democracy is what drives much of what's left of Labour. I'd also note if Ann Black is seen as too right wing then Labour might worry people rather more than they might have feared last year.

Truly worrying times with the swivel eyed loons in control of both major parties.

You don't know the first thing about democracy. Having an election for a powerful position in the party only a few days after the incumbent steps aside, therefore limiting participation, is not democracy. Also Momentum was not involved in this decision, so not sure why you mention them...

Actually I do know. It's because you are ideologically biased against them and resort to deceit to push your agenda. If it weren't for the fact that this place is not a major Internet forum, your persistent deception and underhanded debating style might lead one to suspect that you were a paid shill.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:With Ann Black set to win the role to chair the Labour national policy forum (which basically sets the agenda for the manifesto going into an election) the NEC and the Unions decided in the name of democracy to cancel the vote. The problem it would seem is Ann Black is seen as too right wing in an age of the Dear Leader™ and Momentum, and thus it's important to not have the vote until they can fix who'll win.

Also it would seem no small amount of misogyny at work, but that along with an aversion to democracy is what drives much of what's left of Labour. I'd also note if Ann Black is seen as too right wing then Labour might worry people rather more than they might have feared last year.

Truly worrying times with the swivel eyed loons in control of both major parties.

You don't know the first thing about democracy. Having an election for a powerful position in the party only a few days after the incumbent steps aside, therefore limiting participation, is not democracy. Also Momentum was not involved in this decision, so not sure why you mention them...

Actually I do know. It's because you are ideologically biased against them and resort to deceit to push your agenda. If it weren't for the fact that this place is not a major Internet forum, your persistent deception and underhanded debating style might lead one to suspect that you were a paid shill.

(a) they were having the vote until the candidate momentum wanted wasn't going to win, okay it was the NEC who stepped in, but the whole point is that momentum has insinuated their supporters across the party to stop other voices being heard. had it been a Corbyn stooge going to win there's no way they'd have pulled the vote

(b) it's not like there are plenty of people in the Labour party including those who were at the NPF vote who don't think the exact same thing, so it's hardly a deceit to claim that what happened is what happened

(c) yes I'm biased against Dear Leader™ and momentum, just as you're biased in favour

(d) Ann Black is so far over on the left it remains worrying just how select the group that can be heard from might end up being

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:With Ann Black set to win the role to chair the Labour national policy forum (which basically sets the agenda for the manifesto going into an election) the NEC and the Unions decided in the name of democracy to cancel the vote. The problem it would seem is Ann Black is seen as too right wing in an age of the Dear Leader™ and Momentum, and thus it's important to not have the vote until they can fix who'll win.

Also it would seem no small amount of misogyny at work, but that along with an aversion to democracy is what drives much of what's left of Labour. I'd also note if Ann Black is seen as too right wing then Labour might worry people rather more than they might have feared last year.

Truly worrying times with the swivel eyed loons in control of both major parties.

You don't know the first thing about democracy. Having an election for a powerful position in the party only a few days after the incumbent steps aside, therefore limiting participation, is not democracy. Also Momentum was not involved in this decision, so not sure why you mention them...

Actually I do know. It's because you are ideologically biased against them and resort to deceit to push your agenda. If it weren't for the fact that this place is not a major Internet forum, your persistent deception and underhanded debating style might lead one to suspect that you were a paid shill.

(a) they were having the vote until the candidate momentum wanted wasn't going to win, okay it was the NEC who stepped in, but the whole point is that momentum has insinuated their supporters across the party to stop other voices being heard. had it been a Corbyn stooge going to win there's no way they'd have pulled the vote

(b) it's not like there are plenty of people in the Labour party including those who were at the NPF vote who don't think the exact same thing, so it's hardly a deceit to claim that what happened is what happened

(c) yes I'm biased against Dear Leader™ and momentum, just as you're biased in favour

(d) Ann Black is so far over on the left it remains worrying just how select the group that can be heard from might end up being

(a) The whole thing took place in only a few days. You make it sound like a proper vote with campaigning was held. That is dishonest.

(b) There are lots who think differently. The Labour right are a noisy and organised minority.

(c) This Dear Leader shit demeans you.

(d) This isn't about right or left, but about the fact that she tried to manipulate the leadership vote by excluding tens of thousands.

Zhivago wrote:
(a) The whole thing took place in only a few days. You make it sound like a proper vote with campaigning was held. That is dishonest.

(b) There are lots who think differently. The Labour right are a noisy and organised minority.

(c) This Dear Leader shit demeans you.

(d) This isn't about right or left, but about the fact that she tried to manipulate the leadership vote by excluding tens of thousands.

(a) again had it been a momentum approved candidate favoured to win the vote would have gone ahead.

(b) the Labour right are more a silent majority who once again find themselves cowed by a bunch of shitgibbons they already thought they'd rid themselves and the country of. I wish the Labour right would speak up, though given the threats it's a least in part understandable they don't want to come under attack from momentum

(c) more a personal highlight for me, though I'd grant it Corbyn demeans the country, whether meeting Russian spies, supporting the IRA, supporting Chavez, supporting Hezbollah (something of a terrorism theme emerging with the Dear Leader™), supporting misogyny and antisemitism, proposing to steal private firms, print money rather than raise funds... I'd grant Corbyn starts off my meaning well and genuinely wanting to see as he sees it a fairer society, and then he veers off into the long grass, way, way off into the long grass

(d) yep this isn't quite about left vs right, this is more momentum Vs Ann Black, so that would be left Vs someone on the left willing to at least hear from others in the party

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
(a) The whole thing took place in only a few days. You make it sound like a proper vote with campaigning was held. That is dishonest.

(b) There are lots who think differently. The Labour right are a noisy and organised minority.

(c) This Dear Leader shit demeans you.

(d) This isn't about right or left, but about the fact that she tried to manipulate the leadership vote by excluding tens of thousands.

(a) again had it been a momentum approved candidate favoured to win the vote would have gone ahead.

(b) the Labour right are more a silent majority who once again find themselves cowed by a bunch of shitgibbons they already thought they'd rid themselves and the country of. I wish the Labour right would speak up, though given the threats it's a least in part understandable they don't want to come under attack from momentum

(c) more a personal highlight for me, though I'd grant it Corbyn demeans the country, whether meeting Russian spies, supporting the IRA, supporting Chavez, supporting Hezbollah (something of a terrorism theme emerging with the Dear Leader™), supporting misogyny and antisemitism, proposing to steal private firms, print money rather than raise funds... I'd grant Corbyn starts off my meaning well and genuinely wanting to see as he sees it a fairer society, and then he veers off into the long grass, way, way off into the long grass

(d) yep this isn't quite about left vs right, this is more momentum Vs Ann Black, so that would be left Vs someone on the left willing to at least hear from others in the party

(a) pure hypothetical conjecture
(b) they aren't silent... they stage loads of PR stunts all the time to smear the labour left.
(c) now you're just repeating lazy smears from the tabloids
(d) Ann Black pissed off more than just Momentum with her shenanigans.

Zhivago wrote:
(a) pure hypothetical conjecture
(b) they aren't silent... they stage loads of PR stunts all the time to smear the labour left.
(c) now you're just repeating lazy smears from the tabloids
(d) Ann Black pissed off more than just Momentum with her shenanigans.

I'm willing to accept a lot of smears on my character, but not that I read tabloids, have some respect for others.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
(a) pure hypothetical conjecture
(b) they aren't silent... they stage loads of PR stunts all the time to smear the labour left.
(c) now you're just repeating lazy smears from the tabloids
(d) Ann Black pissed off more than just Momentum with her shenanigans.

I'm willing to accept a lot of smears on my character, but not that I read tabloids, have some respect for others.

I've also checked, and in the days (and hours) leading up to the NEC pulling the vote Momentum were actively lobbying for their candidate, it's specifically not conjecture they moved to pull the vote after realising democracy would move against their wishes, it's much more a case of 2 legs bad 4 legs good

Digby wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
(a) pure hypothetical conjecture
(b) they aren't silent... they stage loads of PR stunts all the time to smear the labour left.
(c) now you're just repeating lazy smears from the tabloids
(d) Ann Black pissed off more than just Momentum with her shenanigans.

I'm willing to accept a lot of smears on my character, but not that I read tabloids, have some respect for others.

I've also checked, and in the days (and hours) leading up to the NEC pulling the vote Momentum were actively lobbying for their candidate, it's specifically not conjecture they moved to pull the vote after realising democracy would move against their wishes, it's much more a case of 2 legs bad 4 legs good

You didn't check hard enough. Momentum's NEC representative Shawcroft wasn't present for the NEC decision.

Below is the full picture of what happened. Please read it with an open mind. More than happy if you can find holes in what is written.

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/18/excl-p ... -by-right/

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm willing to accept a lot of smears on my character, but not that I read tabloids, have some respect for others.

I've also checked, and in the days (and hours) leading up to the NEC pulling the vote Momentum were actively lobbying for their candidate, it's specifically not conjecture they moved to pull the vote after realising democracy would move against their wishes, it's much more a case of 2 legs bad 4 legs good

You didn't check hard enough. Momentum's NEC representative Shawcroft wasn't present for the NEC decision.

Below is the full picture of what happened. Please read it with an open mind. More than happy if you can find holes in what is written.

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/18/excl-p ... -by-right/

This feels rather like trying to convince a flat earthist or anti-vaxxer, which is to say a total waste of my time to even engage on however a limited basis.

I agree they could have had a longer campaign, though it doesn't sound like they need to, but it was proceeding as an election until momentum realised they were going to lose. And it's not just me who's never voted Labour that's obvious to, it's even obvious to many on the left of the Labour party.

And really this is stupid from momentum, they could have simply allowed the election of Black who frankly is basically as far left as them, and certainly someone they could live with on the council. Instead they've made it easy for the likes of me to mock them as the misogynistic loons who fear democracy that they are, but they're so desperate for control they've done this instead the pillocks. (And the the cherry on top they even managed a brilliant piece of mansplaining in the process)

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I've also checked, and in the days (and hours) leading up to the NEC pulling the vote Momentum were actively lobbying for their candidate, it's specifically not conjecture they moved to pull the vote after realising democracy would move against their wishes, it's much more a case of 2 legs bad 4 legs good

You didn't check hard enough. Momentum's NEC representative Shawcroft wasn't present for the NEC decision.

Below is the full picture of what happened. Please read it with an open mind. More than happy if you can find holes in what is written.

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/18/excl-p ... -by-right/

This feels rather like trying to convince a flat earthist or anti-vaxxer, which is to say a total waste of my time to even engage on however a limited basis.

I agree they could have had a longer campaign, though it doesn't sound like they need to, but it was proceeding as an election until momentum realised they were going to lose. And it's not just me who's never voted Labour that's obvious to, it's even obvious to many on the left of the Labour party.

And really this is stupid from momentum, they could have simply allowed the election of Black who frankly is basically as far left as them, and certainly someone they could live with on the council. Instead they've made it easy for the likes of me to mock them as the misogynistic loons who fear democracy that they are, but they're so desperate for control they've done this instead the pillocks. (And the the cherry on top they even managed a brilliant piece of mansplaining in the process)

Look I honestly don't know why I keep trying, because I live in Amsterdam and am mostly unaffected by our incompetent politicians. But I genuinely believe that left wing politics is the answer to our societal problems, and I also hate being manipulated by PR trickery, so I continue to defend those on the receiving end of these machievellian plots.

And it is also very sad that you fall for their ploys time and time again. I mean how gullible do you have to be.

Wanting left wing policies is fine, I'm not going to support/vote for Scocialism but I can respect others who do. Defending someone like Corbyn simply because he's a socialist no matter how he and momentum behave I don't think acceptable, it's akin to those in the USA who wanting anti abortion judges and pro gun policies will defend Trump. You want lefty policies fine, but at least get behind a left wing candidate with morals, and not simply go with the first opportunity no matter all that comes with it.

Digby wrote:Wanting left wing policies is fine, I'm not going to support/vote for Scocialism but I can respect others who do. Defending someone like Corbyn simply because he's a socialist no matter how he and momentum behave I don't think acceptable, it's akin to those in the USA who wanting anti abortion judges and pro gun policies will defend Trump. You want lefty policies fine, but at least get behind a left wing candidate with morals, and not simply go with the first opportunity no matter all that comes with it.

I don't defend him simply cos he's a socialist. Corbyn is one of the most moral politicians in parliament. Your comparison with the far right in America is farcical.

Your opinion of him is based on falsehoods, which is very unfortunate. I'd feel embarrassed if I'd been tricked into believing lies like you have been, to be quite frank.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Wanting left wing policies is fine, I'm not going to support/vote for Scocialism but I can respect others who do. Defending someone like Corbyn simply because he's a socialist no matter how he and momentum behave I don't think acceptable, it's akin to those in the USA who wanting anti abortion judges and pro gun policies will defend Trump. You want lefty policies fine, but at least get behind a left wing candidate with morals, and not simply go with the first opportunity no matter all that comes with it.

I don't defend him simply cos he's a socialist. Corbyn is one of the most moral politicians in parliament. Your comparison with the far right in America is farcical.

Your opinion of him is based on falsehoods, which is very unfortunate. I'd feel embarrassed if I'd been tricked into believing lies like you have been, to be quite frank.

His support for terrorists across the globe is enough for me to condemn him

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Wanting left wing policies is fine, I'm not going to support/vote for Scocialism but I can respect others who do. Defending someone like Corbyn simply because he's a socialist no matter how he and momentum behave I don't think acceptable, it's akin to those in the USA who wanting anti abortion judges and pro gun policies will defend Trump. You want lefty policies fine, but at least get behind a left wing candidate with morals, and not simply go with the first opportunity no matter all that comes with it.

I don't defend him simply cos he's a socialist. Corbyn is one of the most moral politicians in parliament. Your comparison with the far right in America is farcical.

Your opinion of him is based on falsehoods, which is very unfortunate. I'd feel embarrassed if I'd been tricked into believing lies like you have been, to be quite frank.

I used to think that. But having dug just a little deeper into his past, his previous associations, the people he has met and worked with, the causes he has supported, the regimes he has uncritically backed, the positions he has adopted and you start to see a very different person from the one often portrayed.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Wanting left wing policies is fine, I'm not going to support/vote for Scocialism but I can respect others who do. Defending someone like Corbyn simply because he's a socialist no matter how he and momentum behave I don't think acceptable, it's akin to those in the USA who wanting anti abortion judges and pro gun policies will defend Trump. You want lefty policies fine, but at least get behind a left wing candidate with morals, and not simply go with the first opportunity no matter all that comes with it.

I don't defend him simply cos he's a socialist. Corbyn is one of the most moral politicians in parliament. Your comparison with the far right in America is farcical.

Your opinion of him is based on falsehoods, which is very unfortunate. I'd feel embarrassed if I'd been tricked into believing lies like you have been, to be quite frank.

His support for terrorists across the globe is enough for me to condemn him

Alleged.

Repeating the malicious smears isn't helping your cause.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I don't defend him simply cos he's a socialist. Corbyn is one of the most moral politicians in parliament. Your comparison with the far right in America is farcical.

Your opinion of him is based on falsehoods, which is very unfortunate. I'd feel embarrassed if I'd been tricked into believing lies like you have been, to be quite frank.

His support for terrorists across the globe is enough for me to condemn him

Alleged.

Repeating the malicious smears isn't helping your cause.

You think he's not on record supporting the IRA or Venezuela?

fivepointer wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Wanting left wing policies is fine, I'm not going to support/vote for Scocialism but I can respect others who do. Defending someone like Corbyn simply because he's a socialist no matter how he and momentum behave I don't think acceptable, it's akin to those in the USA who wanting anti abortion judges and pro gun policies will defend Trump. You want lefty policies fine, but at least get behind a left wing candidate with morals, and not simply go with the first opportunity no matter all that comes with it.

I don't defend him simply cos he's a socialist. Corbyn is one of the most moral politicians in parliament. Your comparison with the far right in America is farcical.

Your opinion of him is based on falsehoods, which is very unfortunate. I'd feel embarrassed if I'd been tricked into believing lies like you have been, to be quite frank.

I used to think that. But having dug just a little deeper into his past, his previous associations, the people he has met and worked with, the causes he has supported, the regimes he has uncritically backed, the positions he has adopted and you start to see a very different person from the one often portrayed.

You haven't dug into his past, the media has dug all the dirt if could find. I actually do my research, every time there's a new smear, I look into it, and every time it turns out to be just that, a smear.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
His support for terrorists across the globe is enough for me to condemn him

Alleged.

Repeating the malicious smears isn't helping your cause.

You think he's not on record supporting the IRA or Venezuela?

He supported Chavez. Perhaps you think he was a dictator?

He's never supported the IRA as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you have a quote to back up your assertion?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Alleged.

Repeating the malicious smears isn't helping your cause.

You think he's not on record supporting the IRA or Venezuela?

He supported Chavez. Perhaps you think he was a dictator?

He's never supported the IRA as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you have a quote to back up your assertion?

I think (know) Chavez like Gadaffi gave opportunities for certain armed groups which claim to coalesce around left leaning politics, or at least a desire to usurp right leaning capitalist institutions, to gather and practice their shooting skills and even bomb making skills, and that they funded various groups in the process, and brought in and gave residence to individuals from the IRA or Hezbollah or what have you to have a 'safe' place to be, access to monies and allow them to pass on their knowledge in such as bomb making. Just terrific stand up work from Chavez to hand over millions to terrorists whilst leaving his country in such a mess.

It might be fair to say Corbyn isn't an active IRA supporter and more he's an active supporter against some parts of the British state, and if the IRA happen to help in that then at the very least the enemy of my enemy and all that. I suspect also much of Corbyn's public quotes would be more in support of Sinn Fein, but that's potato/potahto going back to the 70s/80s, and I'm not interested in searching for his quotes on anything.

De nile isn’t just a river in Amsterdam.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
You think he's not on record supporting the IRA or Venezuela?

He supported Chavez. Perhaps you think he was a dictator?

He's never supported the IRA as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you have a quote to back up your assertion?

I think (know) Chavez like Gadaffi gave opportunities for certain armed groups which claim to coalesce around left leaning politics, or at least a desire to usurp right leaning capitalist institutions, to gather and practice their shooting skills and even bomb making skills, and that they funded various groups in the process, and brought in and gave residence to individuals from the IRA or Hezbollah or what have you to have a 'safe' place to be, access to monies and allow them to pass on their knowledge in such as bomb making. Just terrific stand up work from Chavez to hand over millions to terrorists whilst leaving his country in such a mess.

It might be fair to say Corbyn isn't an active IRA supporter and more he's an active supporter against some parts of the British state, and if the IRA happen to help in that then at the very least the enemy of my enemy and all that. I suspect also much of Corbyn's public quotes would be more in support of Sinn Fein, but that's potato/potahto going back to the 70s/80s, and I'm not interested in searching for his quotes on anything.

McDonnel has said far worse when it comes to the IRA. Corbyn obviously is happy with those remarks given that he co to use to employ him as shadow chancellor.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
You think he's not on record supporting the IRA or Venezuela?

He supported Chavez. Perhaps you think he was a dictator?

He's never supported the IRA as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you have a quote to back up your assertion?

I think (know) Chavez like Gadaffi gave opportunities for certain armed groups which claim to coalesce around left leaning politics, or at least a desire to usurp right leaning capitalist institutions, to gather and practice their shooting skills and even bomb making skills, and that they funded various groups in the process, and brought in and gave residence to individuals from the IRA or Hezbollah or what have you to have a 'safe' place to be, access to monies and allow them to pass on their knowledge in such as bomb making. Just terrific stand up work from Chavez to hand over millions to terrorists whilst leaving his country in such a mess.

It might be fair to say Corbyn isn't an active IRA supporter and more he's an active supporter against some parts of the British state, and if the IRA happen to help in that then at the very least the enemy of my enemy and all that. I suspect also much of Corbyn's public quotes would be more in support of Sinn Fein, but that's potato/potahto going back to the 70s/80s, and I'm not interested in searching for his quotes on anything.

The fact remains that Chavez was not a dictator - te was fairly elected. Even former president Jimmy Carter said as much.

So now you're backtracking and saying its Sinn Fein he supports. They aren't the same thing at all.